Sig Cross rifle pics and a few words

G

glockguy-187

Regular
Uber Super GunNutz
Rating - 99.8%
463   1   2
Location
Western canada
Just got my Sig Cross rifle in the mail and i have to say im really liking it. Rifle is chambered in 6.5 creedmoor and dressed up with a nikon black FX1000, magpul bipod, and griffin armament paladin 2 port brake. Range time to follow over the weekend im hoping.













 
glockguy-187 said:
Its pretty slick man. I wouldn't call it the RPR killer. Theyre 2 different rifles. The RPR is heavy as #####. Id call it the "most other short action hunting rifle killer" lol.
Click to expand...

I know the first Crosses that are hitting our borders are short barrel, so in that respect not directly comparable to the RPR. But I was under the impression there are Crosses with long barrels that will be a lot more similar to the RPR. Though perhaps still lighter profile barrel?
 
Here's my new SIG CROSS, all dressed up and ready to hit the range this weekend. It sports a Vortex Razor AMG 6-24x 50mm, FFP, milrad optic in ATRS Low Rings, B&T Atlas PSR Bipod, Ergo Deluxe Tactical grip, Griffin Armament .308 Flash-comp, and Magpul VFG. With those few additions, the Cross pretty much feels ready for my Precision and cross-over Hunting needs. In terms of direct comparisons, the Cross is challenged by the somewhat established Christensen Arms Modern Precision Rifle, which I have topped with a Leupold Mk5 5-25 FFP, milrad optic. The weight savings of the MPR are achieved primariy thourgh the use of a Carbon-Fibre wrapped Barrel, C-F Handguard and Cheek-Riser. The Cross acuieves similar light weight through the use of a short(er) 18" Barrel and its industry-unique unitized aluminum Receiver which replaces the heavier Tubular steel Receiver in an alumninum Chassis of the similarly-priced MPR and oher "precision" rifles. I quite ike the Cross thus far - the Bolt Handle design is fast and secure to run in both directions, the adjustable trigger is decent, and the folding Buttstock's lock-up is tight and wobble-free. What's not to like?


20210608-015926.jpg



20210608-020130.jpg



For comparison, here is the Christensen Arms Modern Precision Rifle (MPR);


20200102-144450.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice Set up! I just fondled one at phoenix yesterday, I will definitely pick one up! I don't know why people think that the short barrel is going to affect accuracy, its just going to cause you to lose FPS, if anything it'll be more accurate with less barrel whip. Thats what I notice with my AI with a short barrel. Depending on the weight of bullet you're shooting I bet the FPS would only be 200 FPS less than a 24" barrel. For people who don't shoot over 300 m I bet they wouldn't even notice a difference.
 
onetwentyish said:
Im really digging how nicely the objective lense just barely clears the pic rail for the optimal HOB set up. Ring choice perfection.
Click to expand...

That's not really a thing you know...

The scope height being low provides absolutely no advantage whatsoever on a gun with an adjustable cheek.

As a matter of fact, higher is even better if the butt plate can come up as well. It reduces muzzle jump to have the barrel as low as possible to the butt pad.

I can remember a top rifle shooter who had a stock that placed the bore in the very center of the butt pad.
 
Maple57 said:
That's not really a thing you know...

The scope height being low provides absolutely no advantage whatsoever on a gun with an adjustable cheek.

As a matter of fact, higher is even better if the butt plate can come up as well. It reduces muzzle jump to have the barrel as low as possible to the butt pad.

I can remember a top rifle shooter who had a stock that placed the bore in the very center of the butt pad.
Click to expand...

And this how you know those who are shooting exclusively from a bench and those who are aware of cant, angled shooting positions and issues of barrel offset on extreme close range and long range work.
 
owlowl said:
And this how you know those who are shooting exclusively from a bench and those who are aware of cant, angled shooting positions and issues of barrel offset on extreme close range and long range work.
Click to expand...

As long as you are aware of the effects they can be compensated for, it's just that it's harder to do on the fly if you aren't very familiar with the numbers at different ranges. Each to their own. I could see for ELR it would make sense to have the optic mounted high.
 
Aware and "can be compensated for" is not that same as "there is no difference at all" as it is completely not about height of an adjustable cheek rest.
 
owlowl said:
And this how you know those who are shooting exclusively from a bench and those who are aware of cant, angled shooting positions and issues of barrel offset on extreme close range and long range work.
Click to expand...

Cant is dealt with by plumbing the reticle of the optic to the fall of gravity and to a scope level/anti-cant device. Having a high HOB has no effect on "angled shooting positions". Barrel offset/HOB has no effect for "long range work" as it's part of the data you enter in whatever tool you use to come up with DOPE (at which point it's baked into the firing solution). The only place where there is any effect is "close range work" and that's where you'd choose a suitable zero and know/understand your holds/offset at closer ranges.

The vast majority (if not all) contemporary sniper systems have a full length top pic rail and use 1.5" (AR height) optic mounts (hence having high HOB) not to mention that (obviously) ARs also have a high HOB (many are now using even higher than 1.5" high mounts to have more of a "heads up" stance) and are used very effectively at "extreme close range".

Having your optic "slammed" as low as it goes is a throw back to old-school hunting stocks that don't have adjustable cheek risers.
 
I mounted a Primary arms 2.5-10x44 GLx on mine in medium Vortex rings. While it clears perfectly, I find that I have to drop the cheekpiece all the way down and it still isn't perfect. I will likely switch them out for High rings.

Before that, I had a Vortex 1-6 in a Giessele knockoff AR mount, and it felt perfect in the setup.

Shot it yesterday and it's a beautiful rifle to shoot, Trigger is very light, but has a nice two-stage that you can take up for shots. Recoil is very manageable, and The rifle is more accurate than I will ever be. The best part is that it is quick to shoulder and feels like an AR, this will be a great rifle for hunting.

I love the quick adjustability on the buttstock for different shooting positions, and even though Magpul AICS mags come with a different follower than the one from the factory, they feed just fine.
 
owlowl said:
1) No, optic position has nothing to do with cheek risers. It is never been historically:

iu


3323.jpg



2) "majority (if not all) contemporary sniper systems using AR optic mounts"? This is not true, none of them are using anything "AR optic". The reason to have a forward pic rail is to mount night vision. And the height of a scope mount on a "sniper systems" is only about objective diameter on a large scopes + making it inline with NV mounted in front + clearing sound suppressor on a long barrel.


3) It would be always better to have as little bore to line of aiming offset. Always. At close you will hit too low and won't clear a bore though a slit or an obstacle. Going further your error from offset is always messing up with you even with a perfect vertical position. The only reason you don't care about it, is because you have calculator at hand and know the range exactly from rangefinder. If you had to make a 45 angle or 90 angle shot a large offset will wreck your point of aim. An ability to compensate for that is not the same as saying it has "no effect at all the moment you have a cheek rest".
Click to expand...

1) I don't know how 2 WW2 era sniper rifles (that were never intended to be so, originally) with high HOB and no cheek riser contradicts my statement that the mantra of "slamming the scope as low as possible" is a vestige of older hunting style stocks (with low combs/no cheek riser)?

2) The majority of contemporary sniper systems have their optics in 1.5" high ("AR optic height") mounts for the exact reasons that you mentioned, large objective diameter clearing a full length pic rail and compatibility with clip-on NV/thermal which almost exclusively requires a 1.5" high mount.

3)I understand what a high HOB can do to POI at close range, that's why you learn your offsets, if need be. High HOB makes zero difference at distance assuming you aren't taking "extreme long range" shots with your rifle canted. Distance gives you time and opportunity, if you're shooting canted at extreme range, well, maybe you shouldn't be? If you're talking about high HOB screwing with your offsets when shooting canted at 45 or 90 degrees (to clear ports, slits, "urban prone", whatever) depending on target size, you still need to learn your offset aiming points with a "slammed" optic anyways.

At the end of the day, you like your optic low, cool story. Others run a higher HOB for a whole bunch of different reasons but that doesn't mean they "only shoot from the bench" or whatever nonsense you were going on about. Every system is a compromise and it's incumbent on the shooter to understand how his system works, what it's limitations are and how to mitigate/eliminate them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom